Concept Of Mens Rea - The Criminal State Of Mind

Every crime must include mens rea, or criminal intent. For an act to be considered criminal, there must be mental culpability. The distinction between civil and criminal culpability is made by the presence of both an act and malicious intent. In general, there is nothing wrong with a mere act, by which I mean a deliberate bodily activity.

For instance, the actions that make up a shooting act are not inherently wrong. Shooting a rabbit or a bird is wrong. However, you are guilty of murder if you intentionally shoot someone with the intent to kill them when there is no legal reason for doing so.

There is no bad intent and no crime if you shoot a man because you thought he was a log of wood, in self-defense, or if you amputate his leg to save his life. When a strong man pulls a weaker man from behind and tosses him on you, you dislike the stronger man but not the weaker man because the latter in this situation is merely a tool in the hands of the stronger man.

The theory actus me invite factus non est mens actus, which states that "an act done by me against my will is not my act," expresses this natural emotion. From this vantage point, the notion of mens rea, which is sometimes said to proceed under the presumption of a voluntary conduct, does not affect the irresponsibility in such a circumstance.

Division Of Mens Rea Into Three Categories:

1. General Intent
2. Specific Intent
3. Recklesness/Criminal Negligence

Crimes requiring general intent must show that the accused intended to do something wrong. To be found guilty, just one must have had the intention to do the offence in question. When an offender's voluntary action might be expected to result in an illegal act even without the offender having a specific intention, general intent is present.

In order to establish general intent, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant acted purposefully in the sense that he was conscious of what he was doing. The conduct itself proves the criminal intent necessary to secure a conviction in cases of crimes with universal purpose.

The phrase "specific intent" refers to a defendant's objective desire for a particular outcome to occur as a result of his or her action. Both the intent to perform the unlawful acts and the defendant's motivation to pursue a certain objective must be established by the prosecution. It is not possible to infer specific intent from the act itself, hence concrete evidence is needed to show that this requirement has been met. A crime where the mens rea must be explicit purpose is conspiracy.

Other crimes don't require either particular or general intent. By proving that the defendant acted carelessly or negligently, the prosecution can get a conviction. When the defendant acted carelessly without considering the unjustified risk that the circumstances exist or the outcome will occur, both criminal negligence and recklessness may be present. Criminal negligence is a lesser degree of guilt than recklessness. Standards for carelessness and the potential criminal penalties for criminal negligence differ from state to state.

Where the law is codified and offences are properly defined so that the mens rea is included in the definition itself, like in India, the general notion of mens rea is not of very great consequence. Perhaps all instances where a mens rea cannot be assigned are covered by the definitions in the Indian penal code and the chapter on general exceptions. The general concept would, I assume, not be of much use in cases where neither the definition nor the chapter of general exceptions exclude a case of this kind�I doubt such a scenario occurs.

I only refer to crimes that are legitimately classified as crimes when I discuss mens rea as the necessary component of a crime. Offenses against municipal or fiscal laws, which are occasionally penalized without regard to intent or knowledge, are not included in the phrase.

Words Used In The Code To Denote Mens Rea

1. Voluntarily:

   A voluntary act is typically the opposite of a compulsory act and refers to a choice made voluntarily, independent of influence or coercion. In some cases, the word "voluntarily" has been used to describe the results of actions for which the word "intentionally" could have been more appropriate. However, the definition of "voluntarily" in section 39 of the law is more expansive than that of "intentionally." When a person employs a method to bring about an effect that he meant to bring about or that he knew or had reason to think was likely to bring about the effect at the time the method was used, the method is said to have been used voluntarily.
    

2. Fraudulently-Dishonestly:

   The code includes a very precise definition of dishonesty. Anyone who acts in a dishonest manner is said to have done so with the aim to defraud or harm another person is acting dishonestly.
    
3. If someone performs anything with the intent to defraud but not otherwise, it is said that they have engaged in fraud. Fraud is the act of deceiving. Dishonesty does not require deception; fraud does.
    

4. Rashly-Negligently:

   The codes don't provide any definitions for the words "rashly" and "negligently." They are used to describe the lack of care with which reasonable individuals are expected to act, which is regarded guilty, rather than to indicate a positive intention of evil.

Knowledge As Mens Rea

Knowing something means being aware of something, which shows that someone has a mind. When there is a direct appeal to the senses, a person can be assumed to be aware of it. Understanding the effects of one's actions is known as knowledge. It is the attitude that a person holds toward actual facts that he or she has personally observed or that have been confirmed to him by sources whose truthfulness he or she has no cause to question. In essence, knowledge is subjective. However, intention and knowledge frequently overlap and essentially imply the same thing, making it possible to infer intention from knowledge.

Negliegence As Mens Rea

Mens rea is not a monolithic idea. Mens rea may be the presence or existence of intention in certain circumstances, the requirement of knowledge in others, or negligence in still others, depending on the nature of the crime. As a result, the law has established many categories of mens rea, or intent, including carelessness, recklessness, knowledge, and purpose.

The quantity or level of criminal intent necessary to convict a person of an offence must be determined by the courts based on the nature of the offence, the requirements of specific statutory provisions, and the purpose of the specific statute.

Intention And Knowledge As [Alternative] Mens Rea

Alternative bases of intention are subject to responsibility under the IPC. The responsibility for unlawful homicide is a prime illustration. Both the words "intention" and "knowing" are used in sections 299 and 300 of the IPC, which deal with culpable homicide and murder, respectively, and have different legal repercussions. Although they imply different things, intention and knowledge are utilised as alternative mens rea for the offences. The desire to accomplish a particular goal is known as intention.

There are three types or degrees of mens rea or intention that must be present in order to commit the crime of culpable homicide: 1. An intention to cause death 2. Knowing that causing harm with the aim to kill someone, and 3. Knowing that death is likely to occur.

Public Welfare Offences And Mens Rea

Despite being a universally recognized principle, mens rea as a fundamental component or ingredient of crime has limitations. A wide variety of social or public welfare laws have recently been drafted with the intention of making even the simple act of omission or commission illegal. In other words, criminal liability can be imposed without the need for mens rea or legal blame.

Conclusion
Mens rea is a Latin phrase that translates to "guilty mind." Mens rea, the essential element that sets an offence apart, highlights the importance of the accused's state of mind at the moment the deed was committed.

It's crucial to remember that no activity is unlawful without a mens rea. The common law maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sat rea," which literally translates as "the act is not criminal unless the mind is guilty," serves as the finest definition of mens rea. The accused cannot be held accountable under criminal law unless it can be established that they knowingly committed the offence. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove the existence of mens rea since a person cannot be judged guilty unless the charge against him or her is proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense seeks to plant a reasonable doubt in the judge or jury's mind.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Kaushiki Sinha

Authentication No: SP42368548600-29-0922